ExpandCollapse

New Member

Democrats who claimed victory -- including President Obama -- in stripping the Senate minority of its power to block nominations may have done so at the sacrifice of the president's legislative agenda.

Before Thursday, trust on Capitol Hill was frayed yet there was tentative hope following the bruising fight over the partial shutdown that Republicans and Democrats could find some spectrum of common ground for the rest of Obama's term. Maybe pass a few budgets, maybe do something lasting about that pesky deficit.

But the move to use a rare parliamentary tactic and overhaul Senate procedure making it easier for the majority party to approve presidential nominees has poisoned an already tainted well. Any prospect for compromise on items ranging from immigration legislation to a fiscal deal to tax reform is now that much fainter.

Click to expand...

Commentators aren't ruling out a potential government shutdown that could make October's 17-day debacle look like a walk in the park. And despite the possibility of legislation not being passed, the fact remains, once the Socialists ... I mean, the Democrats ... get the Washington Circuit Court packed with liberals, all regulations the Great Pretender passes will be rubber-stamped by a wild-eyed ideologically corrupt Marxist team in black robes.

The GOP would be better off making their case through the media, letting the Marxist Senate do what it will do, and then repeal it all next year when they get in power. But that will only happen if they don't make bigger A's of themselves than the Socialists ... uh, Democrats ... do, in the meantime.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

It would never have happened if the Republicans has not obstructed every proposal and almost every appointee that Obama made. The GOP completely abused the filibuster in opposing extremely well qualified apointees simply because Obama nominated them. This was a complete violation of dthe trust given by the Constitution to govern.

This is simply one more example of harm done to the country by the obstructionist Republicans!

Even so, the Senate's GOP minority brought the rules change, known as the "nuclear option," on itself. The Republicans' repeated abuse of the filibuster to block highly qualified nominees simply because they were picked by a Democratic president had left Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., with little choice.

ExpandCollapse

New Member

I suppose that you want to keep direct election of the US Senate, tnd.

Click to expand...

Straw man, CMG. You should be ashamed of yourself. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. The Constitution calls for legislative election of senators, as you've pointed out. However, that failed utterly before, during and after the Civil War, but was not corrected until 1913.

The process seemed to work well until the mid-1850s. At that time, growing hostilities in various states resulted in vacant Senate seats. In Indiana, for example, the conflict between Democrats in the southern half of the state and the emerging Republican party in the northern half prevented the election of any candidate, thereby leaving the Senate seat vacant for two years. This marked the beginning of many contentious battles in state legislatures, as the struggle to elect senators reflected the increasing tensions over slavery and states' rights which led to the Civil War.

Other issues, such as bribery -- it's a lot easier to bribe a handful of state legislators than it is an entire state's electorate -- political gridlock that resulted, for one, in Delaware not filling a U.S. Senate seat from that state for four years, led to the Seventeenth Amendment, and it was added to the Constitution in 1913. The following year marked the first time all senatorial elections were held by popular vote.

Senate rules for the 60-vote majority for ending a filibuster have worked well for 226 years, have prevented majority tyranny, and kept the cause of democracy alive. As I said earlier, Reid, Biden, Shumer, et al were totally against this move when it was briefly considered by Republicans in 2005. They should still be against it. You and them apparently want the minority to be stifled and kept silent. Shame on you for that, too.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Don't be one-sided, CTB; the Democrats obstructed a great many Republicans over the years because they controlled Congress for the last 80 years for the most part. Nevertheless, I welcome the move to make everything the Senate does to be decided by simple majority rule because that is more in line with what a republic should be. The Senate used to be made up of appointed people but now we have been electing them. That change destroyed the original rules. The Senate should cease to be more important than the House.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Don't be one-sided, CTB; the Democrats obstructed a great many Republicans over the years because they controlled Congress for the last 80 years for the most part. Nevertheless, I welcome the move to make everything the Senate does to be decided by simple majority rule because that is more in line with what a republic should be. The Senate used to be made up of appointed people but now we have been electing them. That change destroyed the original rules. The Senate should cease to be more important than the House.

Click to expand...

Nothing like the last five years. In the last five years the Republicans have almost doubled the filibusters in the entire history of the country before that time.

Of 168 filibusters of executive and judicial nominees in Senate history, 82 have taken place since Obama took office.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

Anyone who believes getting rid of the filibuster is a result of any obstruction has it only half right. There has been obstruction by both Republicans and Democrats and the President. They are all currently guilty of it just in the last two years.

Our government is set up to force each other to work with each other. Republicans may not like it but they need to work with the other side. Democrats may not like it but they need to work with the other side. The President may not like it but he needs to work with everyone.

But the President and the Democrats do not want to. But more specifically on this issue of judges. The 2n circuit court of appeals is the court that has been the biggest pain in the side of Obama. They have put an end to his constant run around congress and he does not like being told no.

That court is actually set up to hold 4 more judges than it currently has. But even Bush would not appoint any more because their work load is so light there just is no need for more.

Because this is the case Obama never gave it a second thought to appoint anymore judges to that court. At least not until they began hampering his agenda. So now he wants to appoint more judges to stack the court in his favor so he can continue to run around the other side of congress.

This is typical dishonesty from Obama and Reid. What they should have done and what the founding fathers intended was for Obama to find judges who are qualified and could be acceptable to everyone. He needed more moderate appointees rather than extreme far left judges who will be his yes men.

Everyone needs to work together and no one including and especially the President can get all they want. This is nothing more than Chicago style politics at its best.

ExpandCollapse

Well-Known Member

And there is no end in sight for this style of politics. Obama has done many things which are illegal but no one has been able to criticize a Nobel Peace Prize winner. The main brake on the far left has been the collapsed economy.

Quick Navigation

Support us!

The management of Baptist Board works very hard to make sure the community is running the best software, best design, and all the other bells and whistles that goes into a forum our size.Your support is much appreciated!